Sablowsky v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
101 F.2d 183 · 1938
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Weiss v. United States (1939), Neild v. District of Columbia (1940)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 151 · 47 U.S.C. § 152 · 47 U.S.C. § 153 · 47 U.S.C. § 201 · 47 U.S.C. § 301 · 47 U.S.C. § 401 · 47 U.S.C. § 406 · 47 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Olmstead v. United States · United States v. Butler · Ford v. United States · Kepner v. United States
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[1] Except as authorized by chapter 119, Title 18, no person receiving, assisting in receiving, transmitting, or assisting in transmitting, any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning thereof, except through authorized channels of transmission or reception, (1) to any person other than the addressee, his agent, or attorney ... [2] No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any radio communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. [3] No person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by radio and use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto. [4] No person having received any intercepted radio communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) knowing that such communication was intercepted, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such communication (or any part thereof) or use such communication (or any information therein contained) for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“... and no person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communication and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person; and no person not being entitled thereto shall receive or assist in receiving any interstate or foreign communication by wire or radio and use the same or any information therein contained for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto; and no person having received such intercepted communication or having become acquainted with the contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, knowing that such information was so obtained, shall divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or use the same or any information therein contained for his own benefit or for the benefit of another not entitled thereto; ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Kelley“Turning now to an examination of Section 605 we find that its first clause ... prohibits employees of communication agencies from divulging any interstate or foreign communication except upon lawful authority.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.